www.justiceforchandra.com

[jane]

Hi rd. I was wondering - could you make some suggestions as to what changes would give a different result for viewing the blown-up photos? Just a different size monitor or what? With my system, I can't really see anything better in the blown-up photos than with the ordinary ones.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

jane, the key is screen resolution. They default these screens to such high resolution that you can't see any detail. I wrote in the Blowup of Suspect thread:

Guidelines for viewing details in these images

1024x768 on 19" shows detail very well, 1024x768 on 15" LCD shows images much sharper. You can see both detail and overall patterns on a 15" LCD, but with 19" see detail more clearly.


I isolated many of the features I found and posted in various places throughout this thread. Some of them are basically visible in the original photos but you can't tell the detail until it's blown up. The eye just can't discern that from a distance and close together, or even blown up but at high resolution.

The type and size of screen does make a difference. I did all my original work with a 19" regular monitor, but it wasn't until I brought the pictures up on a 15" flat screen monitor that I saw better patterns because the smaller screen and LCD pixels showed overall patterns better. This includes his shoulder patch and is where I first saw his face, which I wasn't expecting at all. :)

But as one example, I blew up the holster to fill an entire 19" screen, so every detail of that holster and thigh straps are easily seen, details not seen in the surveillance photo, although we can see the basic outline now in the original photo. That is what was being discussed as a delivery bag, etc. at his side.

But it is true that one is able to more easily see detail in a large glass monitor than with a smaller LCD monitor. But all at 1024x768.

Please let me know if that helps. Clearly some people have trouble seeing this and other people see amazing results, and I don't how much the display is contributing to it.

thanks jane.

rd

[EHH]

Hi guys. I was working almost round the clock this weekend and barely checked in. I did steal a half hour to revisit the photos and found myself using a simple trick I learned in college (painting and graphic design) - squint. When you're trying to perceive values (darkness or lightness) it can help hugely to squint. That's how I discerned the shape of the LE-style patch RD pereceived on the shirt in the 3rd video still.

There's something off about the perspective, though.

After this work rush - and a couple days' break from the horror of the things I'm seeing/learning here - I'll be able to revisit the photo analysis and do some more with photoshop. It's really useful for being able to create layers and change the opacity of images, among other things.

General questions -

I can't tell from what I've read so far - do LE agencies read these boards? Do you guys ever try to draw their attention to stuff you're looking at? Are they responsive?

Does Jennifer's family or someone from her circle read the board?

Is there data or anecdotal info about boards like this helping with investigations?

Sorry if these are obvious questions. Grateful for any and all lessons.

Liz

[rd]

A good point about perspective being off, Liz, because it really is off a lot.

It's also seen in the shoe. It was always widely recognized the shoe did not seem proportional to the body, and that was seen early on as an identifying feature of the suspect. Only 5'4" as the police gave height estimate but with a really large shoe size.

I confess that I didn't even look at the surveillance photos for over a year. We posted the info known about Jennifer's disappearance, and a couple here (laskipper and kate aka peripetria) took a look at them, and they were widely studied on other boards, but from the police on saying they were next to worthless and no one geting anything out of them, and us initially being misled by police that the person was just someone in the area who might have seen something, I certainly didn't think I could see something in worthless, "grainy" photos as both the Washington DC police and Orlando police have described surveillance photos.

After more than a year, the police finally released the info that this was the person that parked Jennifer's car, and there was this intrigue as to whether it was a woman or not or a short man with this odd headpiece. The police went around to hair salons asking stylists if it resembled a style they were familiar with. They considered the alternative to possiibly be a man wearing a "do" rag.

So I took a look at the pictures just to figure out what was on the head. That seemed simple enough. I initially thought it looked like a woman's hair tied up in a bun. But as jane pointed out with pictures of biking helmets, it wasn't. And from there I never stopped finding more and more. Well, with a lot of squinting night after night, anyway. :)

As I was considering whether this was a woman, I posted that she may be wearing oversized men's shoes to leave false misleading footprints at the crime scene. Certainly it made no sense at all.

It turns out it is a perspective thing from the camera. I'm a computer programmer, and when I handled sales analysis reporting for a large retail chain a few years ago (during Chandra's disappearance), we had data generated by a people counting system placed in stores which I correlated to traffic versus sales versus employees type analysis throughout the day.

The way the people counter cameras worked was to be placed in the ceiling around entranceways. The interesting aspect of this is that to keep from counting shopping carts, children, dogs if any, and the like, the cameras were focused to an area about low adult height, say 5'. Although I never saw any of the images from these cameras as they were being used, this made anything beyond the focus point blurry enough that the image analysis software didn't identify it as a head passing through the door. If it was a 20' ceiling, that would make it a 15' focus point for example, to focus on heads moving through at that height or closer.

We seem to be dealing with something like that here, where the shoe and his shoulder patch, if not more, appear to be larger than normal. It makes some sense that the camera range would be focused on the perimeter of the fence and gate, but I don't know that to be a fact that the camera will drop off in perspective like that outside of a focus point.

I have posted that if anyone could get the details of the camera model and settings from the Huntington on the Green apartment management that I would be glad to buy one and do some testing in Orlando with interested parties. I have not tried to contact them myself because it would have to be during daytime business hours and I'm not available to do that.

The testing would also answer the critical question of how it displays the color of clothes. As anyone reading other boards knows, everyone assumes the clothes are white leading to theories the person is a painter or a cook.

They also assume he is wearing a short sleeve white t-shirt when in fact you can't see his arms and it is unknown whether the shirt is short sleeved or not. It was a nice day at noon, but it was January and the temperature that morning was 52, yet everyone assumes this guy kidnapped Jennifer in early morning hours wearing a t-shirt. He was walking away from her car, so unless he stopped somewhere to ditch warmer clothing like a jacket, that's all he had.

But instead of a white t-shirt, it's a law enforcement shirt thick enough to have shoulder patches. As we've posted here, the police saw in their testing that police uniforms showed up as light in the camera, yet they are as clueless as the public they so mislead in their descriptions. They say, "don't worry about the clothes". Yeah, that'll solve crimes.

Which brings us to whether the police read this or any other crime boards. I doubt it seriously from an organizational aspect. I've reported to them what I found and gave them the website, but the person writing it down was a volunteer and I never heard back from anyone.

I also emailed the Orlando Sentinel a couple of times and they chose not to respond. So they could know about it but they could say they don't know about it, no one the wiser. Now if I call in a psychic reading and say I see Jennifer in a warehouse on a street named after a tree, they'll send cops out to search. So it's all a matter of perspective, I guess.

As to whether the family is aware of this, I also called the family tipline and let them know with voicemail, so they are aware in that way. I certainly hope that they have an opportunity to check on developments here. We're doing what we can.

And thank you, Liz, for checking in and doing what you can, along with the others here. Much appreciated. I hope we take this a bit further to another clue that could result in determining what happened to Jennifer.

rd

[EHH]

Great - thanks for the thorough response. I'm falling over tired but wanted to quick mention something.

For about four years I worked in a weird little job producing visual impact reports to be used in presentations to permitting agencies like zoning boards. The reports showed visual examples of the probably appearance of cell antenna installations - monopoles, towers, rooftop mounts - from surrounding areas. The range went up to 2.5 miles in some cases.

One component was the photosim. It was a relatively accurate representation of what that monopole would look like from that street corner. To do it, usually we flew a 5' diameter balloon to the proposed height, drove around, photographed it, came back to the office and photoshopped a picture of a monopole over it. It was art but it had to be pretty accurate in terms of scale and proportion. So that was a big part of the photosim work I did.

Another component was the sight line. Lots of agencies required that a sight line be generated to accompany each photo. The sight line showed an elevation view of the topography between point A (the camera) and point B (the proposed structure), with the line of sight between them. It was another way to communicate what the impact on an average human, between 5 and 6 above the ground, would see.

So the first thing I thought when I did some scale tests on the guy in the POI photos was - what's the line of sight here? I would *love* to get my hands on some elevation data. Just: height of camera, height of fence, distance from fence to where POI's feet were.

Something's still weird: his stride is > 1/2 his height in the photo. But even if the proportions are screwy b/c of perspective, his torso is more squished than his legs. And I agree about his arms: one of the things that made my hair stand up when I stumbled across your analysis was that you addressed the stuff that was making me nuts about his back.

What do you think are the odds of recreating it? The poster from February, Victory, said she got cooperation from a staff member at the HOTG office and recreated the walk-by wearing the hat. (My initial take on that head was that it was a fisherman's-type cap, rolled and pulled low.) I want to follow up with her if possible just to try to verify any info.

Oh - you made a field trip - did you get a height on that fence? Any other measurements?

Sorry about my spelling. More later.

[rd]

No problem. You can always edit the spelling later.

The camera angle is the one thing that is well discussed on the internet due to discussions on determining height of POI. I don't know of anyone who has looked into this that believes the police estimate of 5'3" to 5'5". The unaminous conclusion is that of an average height male, with most coming in at 5'11". I think that's the high end, between 5'9" and 5'11".

The camera is mounted in a large vent midway up a decorative gable over a one story pool house, I estimate 14' to 15' up from foundation. However, what is little known is that the driveway the POI is walking in is at a lower level than the concrete surrounding the pool and foundation for the poolhouse. The concrete slants down at the gate down to the driveway, I would estimate about a foot and a half.

The distance was given in the news articles, about 35' to 40' from camera down to POI, and on this they had an accurate measurement because in the video they show running a string from the camera down to the photograph model, a short woman police officer!

Yes, I am not making that up. And she was hunched over walking like some kind of creature as they attempted to duplicate the "hump" in the back of the POI in the picture. This despite the video showing him marching briskly around the pool in nearly a military posture.

These people were just out of their league. It's really pretty tragic.

rd

[EHH]

RD wrote:

The distance was given in the news articles, about 35' to 40' from camera down to POI, and on this they had an accurate measurement because in the video they show running a string from the camera down to the photograph model, a short woman police officer!

My q's:

1. How good is your sense of distance - it sounded like your visit was slightly pressured b/c of the residents' discomfort. I know there are a few other fotos out there somewhere, incl. showing the gable. I'll look again.

2. What video are you referring to here? I'd love to see this.

I'll do a sight line using your notes. It'll be interesting.

The height of that fence is one of the key elements for me.

Who is the UCFAlum person who posts here? I thought it was someone from Jennifer Kesse's circle.

Liz

[UCFAlum2002]

Hello RD and Liz,

I do know for a fact that rd's analysis of the poi has been resent to OPD recently.

Thank you for keeping your minds going and not giving up as the family truly appreciates it. Keep the theories going as someday it is going to work and the hope is that someday is sooner rather then later.

Her dad does read all the forums, but just doesn't have enough time to post.

Thanks UCFAlum :)


Liz- in regards to your questions, I am in Jennifer Kesse's family's circle. The information does get back to them. I prefer that this information stays on this forum only.
Thanks :)
_________________
Help Find Missing Jennifer Kesse
www.findjenniferkesse.com
REWARD

[EHH]

Roger that, UCF. Thanks so much for the info.

[jane]

Hi again - very interesting, Liz, that you have experience dealing with 'sight lines' etc. - very relevant to analyzing these pictures. I'll see whether I can find a height for the fence posted somewhere here.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[jane]

I couldn't find the fence height posted at this site.
_________________
"There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known."
Christ

[rd]

[Sparta]

I'm so glad Jennifer's case will be featured on CBS 48 Hours, it's a national show with big ratings and a broad audience, I have my DVR set to record it just in case I'm not gonna be home. There are so many missing people out there, the producers had a lot to choose from, I'm glad JK's case will be getting out there again. I imagine JK's family is grateful as well.

I just hope it leads to some answers. And it's good to hear rd's work is being read by the right people, I think his analysis is spot on in many areas.

Isn't it pretty rare to have the suspect on video involved in the disappearance (in this case, dropping off JK's car in a parking lot) and still photos and not have any information on who that person is or what happened? Can anyone think of another case where you've got the suspect on security camera or any type of video (albeit poor quality) plus still photos and no resolution?

oh one more thing,

I was watching Forensic Files the other day and it involved a woman who went missing, her last known whereabouts was the parking lot of her work. Well there was an ATM nearby and the security camera of the ATM actually captured the woman in the background and her car, horrible camera and even worse since she was so far away in the background. This was in 1989. The police weren't able to do much and neither was the FBI. However they sent the photos to NASA and they were able to greatly enhance the image and get a clear idea of what happened. What happened was her ex-bf father of their child had drove up to her as she got out of her car to go to work, she then stopped at the window of his car or whatever and then somehow he lured her in and you know how the rest goes........but they were able to clearly see the bf's car and they actually re-created the whole thing using the exact same camera, it looked exactly the same as the real life situation. This was nearly 20 years ago.

Has Jennifer's family thought about seeing if anyone from NASA can use some high tech equipment or something to get clearer images, more clues to the identity of this person? I bet rd's work would be even more clear if the folks at NASA could work with the video/photos we do have...

[Sparta]

[rd]

Yes, Sparts, even if NASA or some authority independently re-did an analysis of the three surveillance photos then the Orlando police could move on the findings.

At least I assume that if they ask for the public's help in rememberig a 5'4" individual with some odd hair style around the HOTG at the time then they would want the public's help in remembering an average height male wearing a security guard bike patrol uniform with duty belt and armed.

Here's where I discuss Nancy Grace with Sue Ann Ray's father talking to NASA in asking for help in analyzing a Wal-Mart surveillance photo:

http://www.justiceforchandra.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2693&start=15

And yes, I was posting on previous page that the base of the fence is at least a foot and a half up from the driveway the POI is walking in, and a few feet away from the fence due to an extension out beyond the palm tree we can see him obscured by as he turns his head back toward Jennifer's car... and the camera.

I will find my road trip report where I describe the scene with heights and distances and repost it here.

rd